how long before we see truly realistic environments in games?

[randomint]

gaming is becoming increasingly complex as you all know it. there's been a steady climb towards more realistic environments, damage models etc.

but how long do you guys think (in years, in vid card generations, cpu generations however you wish to measure) before we see *truly* realistic environments like a rocket launcher making a hole in a building and severely compromising its structural integrity instead of just leaving a large black spot on the wall and lots of smoke.

true, developers have damage models for many objects that do blow up or break down in a realistic manner (wooden boxes for example, rag doll physics is another major milestone) but i'm talking about very realistic and destructible/modifiable environments.

of course computing power (both cpu and gpu) and data bandwidth are the main issues here but i'm pretty sure that we will be able to see this in the not too distant future.

 

[apoppin]

enterprise holodeck

*photo realistic* ... DX10

'real' characters, shadows and movement and with superior AI ... 50 years

 

[linkgoron]

15+ years imo.

while graphics keep moving forward, AI and physics aren't moving at the same pace.

 

[randomint]

50 years?!

i think it could be much sooner. i mean there's only so much they can do to cram smaller and smaller transistors on the available materials using the available methods but that can't continue for much longer. they'll have to find a reliable alternative to the transistor, another building block that revolutionizes computing.

they're already doing research on nanotube based molecular components and cross-bar latches etc.

 

[randomint]

Originally posted by: linkgoron
15+ years imo.

while graphics keep moving forward, AI and physics aren't moving at the same pace.

good point, i guess i didn't think of it from this angle. *maybe*, computing-wise and graphically we may be able to do the things i mentioned, but software-wise such physics algorithms/engines to actually carry out the destructible environments haven't even been developed yet and they are sure to be infinitely more complex than the physics engines we have today.

same can be said for the ai. i mean it would be pretty lame to have below-par ai running around in a super-realistic environment. it would be out of place

 

[Hyperlite]

crysis.

 

[randomint]

Originally posted by: Hyperlite
crysis.

ha ha. imagine everything in crysis but more realistic. 'crunchible' leaves, being able to set the forest on fire, the fire spready realistically, gunshot wounds leaving trails of blood.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: randomint
50 years?!

i think it could be much sooner. i mean there's only so much they can do to cram smaller and smaller transistors on the available materials using the available methods but that can't continue for much longer. they'll have to find a reliable alternative to the transistor, another building block that revolutionizes computing.

they're already doing research on nanotube based molecular components and cross-bar latches etc.

i am talking about *reality* - you playing against an NPC that looks and acts *exactly* as a person would do on the screen [down to the hair, the clothing textures and shadows interplay] ... and it has superior AI to yours so you have to set it to "easy"

50 years

 

[randomint]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: randomint
50 years?!

i think it could be much sooner. i mean there's only so much they can do to cram smaller and smaller transistors on the available materials using the available methods but that can't continue for much longer. they'll have to find a reliable alternative to the transistor, another building block that revolutionizes computing.

they're already doing research on nanotube based molecular components and cross-bar latches etc.

i am talking about *reality* - you playing against an NPC that looks and acts *exactly* as a person would do on the screen [down to the hair, the clothing textures and shadows interplay] ... and it has superior AI to yours so you have to set it to "easy"

50 years

hmm that's a tough one. although i'm not a big believer in realistic a.i. being possible in the near future, but atleast from the standpoint of graphics (textures, shadows, lighting, movement, animation, particle effects) and all the other graphical goodies, i think it's possible well before that.

but yeah, a.i. is the real deal

 

[biostud]

2011

 

[DeathReborn]

2018-2020

If you are on about just Graphics & Physics. Hell if they had a 8800GTX for every CPU in IBM's Blue Gene/L you might get close to it, albeit with many years of software development to generate the scenes.

 

[gamepad]

Playstation 7.

 

[Matt2]

A better question is:

"When will software engineers be able to create truly realistic enviornments?"

Hardware will be able to do it in a few years, but as long as people are trying to run the latest games on X800's and 6800's, you wont see anything close to that.

That's why I believe consoles are the future. Developers can code to the very limits of the hardware creating better looking and playing games then PCs with 3x the horsepower.

 

[Brunnis]

I believe it will be some 15 years before we really start to approach something actually looking truly realistic. Sure, a game like Crysis looks really good, but you'll hardly need to look hard to see the limitations of the current tech.

As mentioned by a few others, I think actually developing this extremely advanced software will be the biggest challenge.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

I have to go for 15 years too... Remember how games looked like 15 years ago? Wolfenstein 3D was coming out Now picture Crysis as the next Wolfenstein 3D and think of a new game as good as Crysis is now

 

[Aberforth]

fully realistic won't be nice, we play games to escape from the reality and have fun so games must be unrealistic upto some extent.

 

[ScrewFace]

I agree. Just because a game looks good doesn't men it's fun. My favourite game today is still GLQuake with the FuhQuake mod. The graphics are excellent even by today's stan dards and it's alot of fun compared to some of these newer games like Half-life2 and Doom3.

 

[nullpointerus]

After we're all dead--or too old to notice.

 

[cnhoff]

The problem is, no one will recognize this revolutionary graphics by then, because they will only be evolutionary

For the real shocking moments one would need a time machine (or reinstall "revolutionary" high end graphics games like Strike Commander or Doom

 

[krotchy]

Crysis was pretty ridiculous when I played the demo at CES.

You could literally shoot the struts off of a building and it would start to crumble slowly. Trees fell apart exactly where they were shot. Shooting a plane down and having it crash caused trees to get severed as the exploding plane thrashed through them. It was darn impressive of a demo.

 

[SunnyD]

You obviously haven't played Company of Heroes then.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Personally, I don't want games to start looking like TV footage. Difficult to explain, but the game can get as close to that as possible, but once is starts looking like a TV-Show or something, the fun stops for me there. I'd say 25 years personally. A lot can happen in 25 years. I believe 25 years ago we couldn't even render anything in 3D, at least on a PC.

 

[Imyourzero]

Randomint, we already have some of the effects that you mentioned (buildings crumbling, water splashes, footsteps in sand/snow, blood trails, etc). Problem is, they haven't been overly realistic for the most part. The buildings usually crumble in the same manner every time and the water splashes and blood trails are there but they can definitely be improved upon in terms of realism.

The other things you mentioned such as leaves that crunch (not just sound effects) and being able to set fire to an environment and have it spread realistically...now THAT would be cool since even in today's most dynamic environments you are STILL limited to what you can do and how you are allowed to manipulate certain objects in the game world. I always thought Red Faction was cool because you could use the rocket launcher to blow holes through most any wall if you didn't want to use the door...I even used it to make a tunnel and burrow into a wall underground but of course there was a limit to how deep the hole could go. Still cool, though.

When games eventually get to the point where storage capability and processing power isn't a problem for most things, one of the coolest things IMO would be a game where you could drive literally anywhere. There would be no invisible walls and the programmers would take satellite or map data and recreate every highway, street, and alley in the world (or at least the U.S.). Imagine a game like GTA where you could exit your apartment in New York, go steal a car, and drive NONSTOP with no load screens all the way to Las Vegas or San Diego. That would be nuts! I probably wouldn't leave my house for weeks because I'd have to experiment driving in/around all the real-life locales and jumping off bridges that were under construction.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Imyourzero
Randomint, we already have some of the effects that you mentioned (buildings crumbling, water splashes, footsteps in sand/snow, blood trails, etc). Problem is, they haven't been overly realistic for the most part. The buildings usually crumble in the same manner every time and the water splashes and blood trails are there but they can definitely be improved upon in terms of realism.

The other things you mentioned such as leaves that crunch (not just sound effects) and being able to set fire to an environment and have it spread realistically...now THAT would be cool since even in today's most dynamic environments you are STILL limited to what you can do and how you are allowed to manipulate certain objects in the game world. I always thought Red Faction was cool because you could use the rocket launcher to blow holes through most any wall if you didn't want to use the door...I even used it to make a tunnel and burrow into a wall underground but of course there was a limit to how deep the hole could go. Still cool, though.

When games eventually get to the point where storage capability and processing power isn't a problem for most things, one of the coolest things IMO would be a game where you could drive literally anywhere. There would be no invisible walls and the programmers would take satellite or map data and recreate every highway, street, and alley in the world (or at least the U.S.). Imagine a game like GTA where you could exit your apartment in New York, go steal a car, and drive NONSTOP with no load screens all the way to Las Vegas or San Diego. That would be nuts! I probably wouldn't leave my house for weeks because I'd have to experiment driving in/around all the real-life locales and jumping off bridges that were under construction.

Actually, that is a really cool post. I would like that too, because my favorite games are realistic driving games. I would use that game (or program) to drive around the city before I visited it in person (I travel for my job frequently). So, that would be a great tool, especially when going into an area you have no idea about.

 

[Imyourzero]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
fully realistic won't be nice, we play games to escape from the reality and have fun so games must be unrealistic upto some extent.

I disagree somewhat. No matter what, there will be some suspension of reality and a degree of disbelief...I mean I want more realistic car crashes and bullet wounds. They can make it look as realistic as they want to, cause while I'm playing the game at least I don't have to worry about dying or denting my actual car up. But I want it to be as realistic as possible (imagine pr0n games, lol).